Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: What database shall I use???

Re: What database shall I use???

From: corey lawson <corey.lawson_at_worldnet.att.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 03:39:44 GMT
Message-ID: <3c8c2550.31870118@netnews.att.net>


If you're only doing read-only access to Access [sic], then Access isn't too bad, even for large MDB files. It starts bogging down hard when your MDB size gets over ~20MB or so and >5 simultaneous read-write users, generally. MSDE (MS Sql Server 7 "personal" edition) has similar limitations, but at least if you've connected to it, you can throw a faster server at it for awhile. Since Access linked to remote Access files is pure file-server access, it can really get killed if the table size gets >10,000 records.

Throw in potentials for MDB corruption, say, if a user's PC bombs in the middle of an edit, the use of VBA functions in fields that have criteria or as criteria in queries (which cause Jet to slurp much more data than necessary to process it on your local computer...)...

At least backups of MDB files are simple!

On Tue, 05 Mar 2002 18:17:04 GMT, "Glen A Stromquist" <gstromquist_at_nospamyahoo.com> wrote:

>My 2 bits worth -
>
>If you are not looking at a huge number of tables/users and/or complexity,
>Access might do the job for you, if you are looking at large numbers of
>users accessing at the same time then definatly not, although Access still
>can be used for a "front-end" for a SQL Server or Oracle database, which
>IMHO is far to "buggy" for this purpose and there are better alternatives.
>
>I have built a few simple applications in Access, quite small database wise
>and there was enough bugs to keep me busy for quite awhile when they were
>initially deployed. It would give me nightmares to think of a large mission
>critical application being deployed in Access alone.
>
>If you want rock solid security and data integrity go with a true RDBMS,
>such as SQL Server or Oracle, the latter being my preference ( I
>administrate both of them)
>
>hth
>
>
>
>"Albert D. Kallal" <kallal_at_msn.com> wrote in message
>news:Zz6h8.219319$A44.13555535_at_news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>> Microsoft spent a considerable amount of money and effort on
>> the new versions of this product. The new features allow Access to work
>> as a native front end to sql server. This is a NATIVE CONNECTION
>> with no local tables.
>>
>> This means Access is now a very
>> scalable product, and can be used in the Corporate environment. MS clearly
>> considers the server based database market a key technology in their farm
>> of products. Any product that encourages the use of their server products
>> is clearly a strategic and important product.
>>
>> It is interesting, but Access is now kind of two products. It is possible
>> that the new Access ADP project builder should have been called SQL
>> "CLIENT BUILDER". In fact, they probably should have done this. In other
>> words they should have re-named the product to sell to the corporate
>> market. In addition, they could have kept the Access name (hence, sell the
>> *exact* same product with two different names). Microsoft really missed a
>> big opportunity here.
>>
>> I believe that this name change was not done due to the very large user
>> base that Access already had. It really was a catch 22. The real reason
>> to change the name is that Access has a *very* bad "taste", or "image"
>> in the corporate market. This image was one of Access not being a
>> industrial strength database. It is common to hear many database people
>> say that Access is a toy
>>
>> With the "ADP" feature of Access, it is now
>> a true client product, and thus can be considered a true corporate tool.
>It
>> also means that Access CAN NOW BE used in Mission Critical applications.
>>
>> For large mission critical applications Access is not appropriate
>> when used with *NO* server.
>>
>> You also have to understand that Access is not a database server, but
>really
>> is only a client to some type of database. That database can even be
>Oracle.
>>
>> Thus, even when you choose Oracle as your server, you still have to decide
>> what tools, and what you are going to use for the client.
>> --
>> Albert D. Kallal
>> Edmonton, Alberta Canada
>> kallal_at_msn.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sun Mar 10 2002 - 21:39:44 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US